Dont know which bed you got...most beds these days have a memory foam that prevents any kind of feel of impact around you.

In all honesty...I guess you could produce what you say...but isnt that somewhat going for the most unlikely of scenarios ? this would imply devious
intent on the part of the person doing it. Preparation, planning...all the while being angry, mad or whatever.

I am not saying that in this scenario one is intending to commit "the perfect murder"....more often than not, it's a fit of rage induced by the baby
crying and not being able to get it to stop. A sort of insanity from the persistent crying...it happens.

If there was no bruising and the parent that did it denied it vehemently and just called the ambulance after the baby is dead and just lying there on
the bed...how would one know? I would imagine it would be hard to prove that....and thus, we go back to "reasonable doubt"....so, right back where we
started.

I guess you could produce what you say...but isnt that somewhat going for the most unlikely of scenarios ? this would imply devious intent on the part
of the person doing it. Preparation, planning...all the while being angry, mad or whatever.

Not necessarily any type of devious intent...just "fed up" and "outburst"......"SHUT UP BABY....arrrrgggg" *doesn't touch baby but places both hands
on either side of baby on bed and shakes...the resulting TBI (if it happens) could very well be accidental, no?

And that memory foam (which I have, yes) and the damping of the "back and forth" would actually cause more "back and forth" to be localized to the
"point of impact", no? Like I said, I don't believe it would take much....the baby wouldn't have to be bouncing up and down a foot or two off the
bed....it only really takes a bit of fast "back and forth" to shift the brain in the skull...especially in an infant.

I would say it isn't the most common thing, but I can see it happening.
Just one scenario.....in others, the bruising, or lack thereof, is still an issue and a question to me.

I agree. But I'll question their "devotion" to the issue when they come along here for an AMA and bounce out as quickly as they did with no follow
up. Seems to me if they are that devoted, they would be here answering questions (or would have) for more than a single hour. Surely, between the
two of them they could make a bit of time for their "passion" so as to bring in some more light on the topic when given a platform such as this one,
no?

Justice systems who fail to properly evaluate all the evidence!

I agree on that as well. We see it time and time again. The broken "just us" system is a failure in so many ways, it's sickening, really....and sad.

Yes, I notice that as well, with some.
Personally, I don't know where I stand. Are we to believe "supposed" abusers....? The "justice system"? The "innocent"?
Idk.

I don't want any innocent people in jail for something they clearly didn't do. But I also don't want a bunch of guilty people roaming the streets
getting away with sh*t because they can find "loop holes" and create "reasonable doubt".
I see it as a rather complex situation, no doubt.

Well, if the defense lawyer is a public defender, don't count on them to do much. I'd imagine some of those wrapped up in such horrible cases didn't
have the money or the "pull" to bring in those types to counter the prosecution.
...one hand washes the other.

It would be worth researching the doctors and forensic types that say SBS is "myth" before taking their word for it.
It would also be worth noting the stake that doctors/forensic types have in claiming it's a done deal scientific fact, no doubt.

I'm glad to see that others are having a problem with the OP also. I've had to think about it and try to separate my own confirmation bias from the
process, because I do agree that SBS is probably over-diagnosed and mis-diagnosed too often, persecuting innocent grieving parents and other
caretakers... but I didn't like the way this was presented at all.

Buzzy is right though. Babies can and are seriously injured, even killed, by shaking, and it's irresponsible to represent mis-diagnosis of a serious
issue as being debunked. That's a H U G E difference. And they know better. They've been at this for a while. (Their film was first
introduced in the fall of 2014). They know this. And yet they continue to represent the issue as something it's not, which can have very serious --
even deadly -- consequences. Why???

Nor was I impressed with their pat answers for the vaccination injury association. Right or wrong, it's impossible for anyone to do any indepth
investigation into the SBS controversy without coming across the vaccination injury claims. Absolutely impossible. So they know, and they knowingly
and deliberately have chosen to ignore it. And that's fair enough. They don't claim to be medical experts, and it's just one of many possible other
causes for the symptoms, so there's no need to examine those claims in detail... but they can and should at least acknowledge it as a factor in the
controversy without taking a position on it. Why???

Another big problem I have is their focus on people profitting from their work in the field. Everyone deserves a fair wage for their labor. I
assume these ladies hope to make a few bucks from their work too. And even if these folks are simply greedy opportunists, what else is new? There
will always be opportunists read to exploit any and all situations for a buck. That's not the problem. I think it was Eleanor Roosevelt who said
that the inferior mind talks about people, the mediocre mind talks about events, and the superior mind talks about concepts. Don't tell me about
those awful people making a living... tell me about what they're doing that's wrong. Tell me about the biomechanical studies, about the clinical
medical studies, about the differential diagnoses, about how all of these introduce reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.

Finally, satanic panic? Really??? Talk about sensationalism!!! And that's the best I can say about that. The worst I can say is that it fits right
into my theory about deliberate disinfo... specifically, take a legitimate issue and twist and contort it into such a monster that it is quickly and
easily debunked, and the legitimate underlying issues are likewise perceived as debunked -- though they aren't.

If these ladies are sincere in their efforts, then they will use this experience to do better. SO gave them an amazing opportunity to engage some
serious thinkers and debaters and to refine their message. It's up to them now.

The studies show that you would see severe neck damage long before you would see brain damage from violent shaking or whiplash. The neck is the weak
point on a baby. There have never been damaged necks in any of these cases.

The Syndrome (2014 Documentary)
Audrey Edmunds, mother of three, spent 11 years in prison for killing a baby she never harmed. And she is not alone. What happens when widely held
beliefs based on junk science lead to the convictions of innocent people? The Syndrome is an explosive documentary following the crusade of a group of
doctors, scientists, and legal scholars who have uncovered that "Shaken Baby Syndrome," a child abuse theory responsible for hundreds of prosecutions
each year in the US, is not scientifically valid. In fact, they say, it does not even exist. Filmmaker Meryl Goldsmith teams with Award-winning
investigative reporter Susan Goldsmith to document the unimaginable nightmare for those accused and shine a light on the men and women dedicating
their lives to defending the prosecuted and freeing the convicted. The Syndrome uncovers the origins of the myth of "Shaken Baby Syndrome." It
unflinchingly identifies those who have built careers and profited from this theory along with revealing their shocking pasts. Shaken baby proponents
are determined to silence their critics while an unthinkable number of lives are ruined.

The review likens the efforts of doctors, scientists and legal scholars to that of a religious crusade and calls it junk science.

Reminds me of an interview I watched where an opponent of evolutionary theory called it "junk science". When the reporter asked her what her theory
was, she said, "I don't have one, I'm not a scientist"

Of course there will be those who seek to profit and build careers by taking unfair advantage. I think a good example of that would be global warming,
the fact that there are those who seek to take advantage and profit from it doesn't necessarily disprove the theory. That's faulty logic and those
arguments should be thrown out as being erroneous. When discussing something of this nature, only the facts of the matter should be relevant.

This quote from the review sums up the problem I have with the film; "The Syndrome uncovers the origins of the myth of "Shaken Baby Syndrome." It
unflinchingly identifies those who have built careers and profited from this theory along with revealing their shocking pasts."

Uncovering the origins and identifying those who have built careers from it does not in any way invalidate the theory itself or the science behind it.
If someone tells me that shaking a baby violently does not harm the baby, I'm not going to simply believe them without hard scientific proof! There is
too much science that says that shaking a baby does cause serious harm and possibly death.

Thank you so much for the really kind message. We really appreciate it. Please let us know what you think about the film after watching and if
inspired, help us spread the word. Thank you for your open mind! As one of the doctors in our film says, this issue needs to be approached from a
place of reason and science, not hysteria. Best--Susan

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.